The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for administrative action to be free from malice and to satisfy the test of real likelihood. The court emphasized the importance of fairness in administrative action and sports selection, highlighting the obligation of selectors to act with complete rectitude and ensure fairness in the process of selection.

1. Every person from whichever walk of life he comes from, is entitled to ex debito justitiae, of course, with the exception of droit ne done pluis que soit demaunde. Indispensable conditions to administrative action are fairness and adherence to rules governing the subject. Infringement of these rudiments would normally invite judicial criticism and the Courts would be obliged to remedy the wrong by granting necessary relief to the person concerned. Reference in some elucidation to the concept of fairness in administrative action is necessary in the present case as the principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is a challenge to the action of the respondents in electing the team for Coxless Fours event for participation in the Junior National Rowers Championship, which was to be held in March, 2004 on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination.

2. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. V. K. Khanna (2000) 5 Serv LR 734 : (AIR 2001 SC 343) enunciated the law that administrative action should be free from malice, beyond reasonable suspicion and should satisfy the test of real likelihood. Their Lordships held as under :-

"The concept of fairness in administrative action has been the subject-matter of considerable judicial debate but there is total unanimity on the basic element of the concept to the effect that the same is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the Court and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved therefor. As a matter of fact, fairness is synonymous with reasonableness. And on the issue of ascertainment of meaning of reasonableness, common English parlance referred to as what is in contemplation of an ordinary man of prudence similarly placed it is the appreciation of this common mans perception in its proper perspective which would prompt the Court to determine the situation as to whether the same is otherwise reasonable or not."

3 While keeping the above precepts applicable to the principle of fairness in administrative action in mind, we would refer to the facts of the case in hand. Both the petitioners are sports women of recognition in the event of rowers. Both these petitioners are very young and are looking for a bright sports career. Petitioner No. 1 won the gold medal in Coxless Pair in Junior National Rowers Championship held in 2001 in Orissa. She won gold medal in Coxless Pair in National Championship 2000 held at Pune. She also won bronze medal in Coxless Pair in National Games, Hyderabad. She claims to have participated in First Asian Rafting and won two gold medals in All India University Championship held at Lake Club, Chandigarh in the year 2003. Besides this she also claims to have won various medals in her event in the field of Rowing. Petitioner No. 2 won silver medal Coxless Four in All India University at Chandigarh, 2002. She participated in Coxless Pair and Coxless Fours in Senior National Championship at Pune in 2003. She won gold medal in Coxless Pair and Coxless Four in All India Inter-University Championship at Chandigarh in 2003.

4. On 4-2-2004 a news item was published, obviously on behalf of Secretary, Chandigarh Rowing Association, indicating that the City team for the 24th Open Senior National Rowing Championship which was to be held next month, the team would be selected on the basis of performance in those trials for different events including Single Scull, Double Scull, Coxless Pairs and coxless four events. The entries were to be made on 6th of February. However, no such selection took place on 6-2-2004 and the event was postponed. On 22-2-2004 the petitioners participated in the Coxless Pair. They were declared first and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were declared second. According to the petitioners, they being the first pair in the Coxless Pair event, were eligible and entitled to participate in the Coxless Four and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not even eligible. Because of less participa